Tag Archives: The Green Party

Telegraph Comment of the Week (#27)

The severe weather that’s been affecting the British Isles for the last few weeks has provided a stark reminder that climate change is here and it is real. Climate change sceptics or ‘deniers’, as they are sometimes called, respond with the usual mush about how fossil fuels aren’t a contributory factor to the change in climate and how we should all learn to love breathing heavily polluted air. The ‘deniers’ are a scientifically-challenged bunch, who pretend to know more about science than they actually do. Lord Nigel Lawson is one such fellow. Lawson possesses no scientific qualifications… unless you count his degree in PPE, which includes the dismal science of economics but aside from that, he’s no scientist. He is, however, working on behalf of the very industries that are responsible for pollution and he loves to frack.

Climate change sceptics are an odd bunch. Take Brendan ‘Eddie Munster’ O’Neill, a man who takes a contradictory position on almost anything. Today he takes the side of the petrochemical industries over peer-reviewed scientific research. In a blog titled “Are you now or have you ever been a climate change sceptic”?

Eddie takes over from where his erstwhile stablemate, James ‘Norma Desmond’ Delingpole (who left Telegraph blogs this week),by accusing the Green Party’s Natalie Bennett of “McCarthyism” because she said in a BBC interview that “every senior adviser who refuses to accept the scientific consensus on climate change shouldn’t be in their posts”. Fair enough. Would you have a creationist in charge of teaching evolutionary theory? Well, no you wouldn’t. Therefore, it makes perfectly good sense to exclude any adviser whose views are ideologically opposed to climate change.

Eddie can’t see this. He groans:

Perhaps we should ask every aspiring civil servant, “Are you now or have you ever been a climate-change sceptic?” The Green Party’s proposal shows how authoritarian and intolerant environmentalist politics has become, so that everyone who raises awkward questions about the climate-change consensus is branded a “denier” (a term borrowed from the Inquisition) and anyone who fails to conform to the right way of thinking on climate-change issues will swiftly find themselves accused not just of being wrong, but of being immoral and even dangerous – the Green Party says senior government advisers who refute the green consensus are “endanger[ing] our future and our children’s future”.

This is paranoid stuff from Eddie and he knows just what his readers want, so he lays it on some more.

When a party can so casually call for the sacking of political advisers who do not accept a particular outlook, a particular consensus, then it’s pretty clear that party has lost any attachment to the age-old ideals of free thought, free speech and the rights of conscience. The Greens are demanding nothing less than a purge of eco-heathens and political undesirables from public life. And in the process they have revealed their true instincts, which are to demonise their opponents rather than debate them, censor stuff they don’t like rather than challenge it, and, like a secular version of yesteryear’s pointy-hatted enforcers of Biblical correctness, brand as beyond the pale anyone who doesn’t accept the gospel of greenness.

Notice how he continues the religious theme in this final paragraph.  The Greens are “demanding purges” and they “demonise their opponents”. Not that O’Neill ever demonizes anyone. Oh no. Not our Eddie. Parties call for sackings all the time but in O’Neill’s eyes, the Greens are a special case and his readers agree with him. This week’s comment was provided by someone calling themselves “bluepeter”.

bluedickheadNotice how this one immediately ties the idea of climate change to “wealth re-distribution”. Yeah, wealth redistribution is bad, it’s kind of like communism for “bluepeter”.  What I find curious about this comment is the way the author seems so certain of the merit of his bad arguments. “It’s not a debate the believers wish to have because they know they will lose” (my italics). The climate change sceptics believe that anyone who supports (the correct word for those who accept the scientific position) the idea of climate change are the same as members of a religious cult – as Eddie had done earlier with his Inquisition references. Not that the ‘deniers’ attitudes aren’t cult-like or the their unwavering belief in bankrupt economic theories borders on blind faith. Please, spare me the hysterics.

“Bluepeter” closes by suggesting the Greens, climate change scientists or anyone else who doesn’t agree with him are “fascists” adding  they, “silence the opposition”. Which is kind of funny when you think about it,  because that’s what today’s fascists (who tend to refer to themselves variously as ‘nationalists’ or ‘libertarians’ these days) accuse anti-fascists of doing when they oppose fascists on our streets. I even had someone suggest to me that trade unions who went on strike were ‘fascists’. Fascism and Nazism were both opposed to trade unions. Who says irony is dead?


Filed under Media, Telegraph Comment of the Week, Tory press

Where would righties be without lazy thinking?

Another classic from Hannan this morning. His blog’s headline is “Where would lefties be without hatred”? I would ask him the same question but replace the word “leftie” with “rightie”. Mad Dan has taken this idea that people on the left are ‘hateful’ from the US right who will often use the word as a riposte whenever their ideas or their leaders are questioned “You’re so hateful”! It’s puerile stuff and demonstrates an inability to formulate a coherent counter-argument on the part of the person speaking. The blog is articulated around Richard Curtis’s new video (is Curtis really a ‘leftie’ or his position merely relative to the right wing nuttery of Hannan?).

However reading through the blog, it quickly becomes apparent that he’s talking about “animal lovers” whom he alleges are “people loathers”,

I’ve noticed before that a surprising number of animal lovers are really people loathers. Not all, of course, nor even most; but some. In every age and nation, there are people casting about for a valid reason to detest their neighbours.

So what are you saying here? Or do you even know?  But let’s be clear about something, Hannan is no animal lover; he’s an apologist for corrida. He moans about how “vegans” and “little old ladies”  castigated him for his views,

Animals can be a handy cause for people seeking to justify their dislike of humans. There are always men casting around for a way to validate their sociopathic tendencies. A hundred years ago, they claimed to be outraged on behalf of the proletariat. Then, when working people found their own political representatives, the Angry Young Men took to championing colonials who were less likely to speak for themselves.

Pardon?  It looks like he’s having another cheap pop at the ‘left’ again. I wonder if he realizes that the rakish Alan Clark, Tory minister, Europhobe and racist was an animal lover and a vegetarian? Incidentally, Clark once claimed that he was a “Nazi” in response to The Guardian’s allegation that he was a fascist. He wasn’t joking either. Clark wouldn’t have approved of Corrida and would have had something to say to Hannan about the matter.

Funnily enough there is no mention of left wingers save for a brief mention of the Greens. But are they really left wing? I’ve never thought of Jonathon Porritt or Sara Parkin as left wing. Maybe Desperate Dan knows something that we don’t? He says,

I have Green friends

Good for you. I don’t really trust the Greens.

Throughout the blog, he links back to his other blogs where he makes ignorant comments like this one,

One of the things you pick up very early in the world of blogging and Twitter is how fond Lefties are of the word “evil”, as in “evil Tory scum”. Having dismissed the concept of evil as traditionally understood by monotheistic religions, they have transferred the label to a set of beliefs of which they disapprove.

I don’t know how many real ‘lefties’ you know but it sounds like you’ve been spending too much time around Freakrepublic. He finishes with this,

Hatred, like evil, is very important to a certain kind of Leftie. Not, let me stress, all Lefties: plenty of socialists accept that there are other valid points of view. The funny thing is that the ones who hate the hardest tend to be the ones who aspire to the highest of the moral high ground.

So what are you saying? Are you trolling?

This is bizarre,

Capitalism is the most moral economic system yet devised. It lets people become rich to the extent that they provide a service for others. That’s not to say that capitalism is perfect, simply that every alternative system leaves people poorer and less free.

How is capitalism “moral”? There is a great deal of faulty thinking evident in this paragraph. Which “alternative system” is he referring to? In his desire to praise-song late capitalism, Dan’s thinking takes a turn down a familiar cul-de-sac: it is here where he would ordinarily make his Hayekian claim that’ socialism leads to tyranny’ and would normally bring in the Stalinist USSR as his single piece of supporting evidence.

Ah, where would righies be without lazy thinking?


Filed under Ideologies, Language, Society & culture